W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2004

Re: A protest against the proposed change(s) to RDF datatyping

From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:52:29 -0600
Message-Id: <p06001f04bc2b2833180f@[10.0.100.76]>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

>From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
>Subject: Re: A protest against the proposed change(s) to RDF datatyping
>Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:15:40 +0000
>
>>  Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>
>>  [...]
>>
>>  >
>>  > I, Peter F. Patel-Schneider, a recognized expert in the field of knowledge
>>  > representation, an author of the W3C OWL specification, and a kibbutzer
>>  > (sp?) in the design of the semantics of RDF, do hereby protest against the
>>  > proposed change(s) to RDF datatyping on the grounds that they have
>>  > substantive, noticeable, and negative effects on the design of RDF, as
>>  > evidenced by several of my recent messages to www-rdf-comments@w3.org.
>>  >
>>  > [Does this have to be sent anywhere else to be totally official?]
>>
>>  Hi Peter,
>>
>>  This message is to confirm that I've seen your protest.
>>
>>  I'm currently interpretting it to refer to the substantive change
>>  described in:
>>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2004JanMar/0015.html
>>
>>  i.e. concerning:
>>
>>  [[
>>  The only substantive aspect of this change which
>>  may effect OWL is that in RDF, D-interpretations would no longer be
>>  required to interpret the class extension of the datatype name as
>>  being identical to the value space of the datatype (instead, it could
>>  be a subset of that class extension.)
>>  ]]
>>
>>  Its important to be clear about what change you are protesting, as there
>>  is another proposal for what I expect to be minor editorial bug fixes
>>  and I want to be clear that you are not protesting about those.
>
>Are there other changes to entailment being proposed for RDF, even changes
>that do not appear to affect OWL?  I would view any such change in a
>negative way.

Just to clarify: as of my last message, there are no changes to any 
RDF entailments now being proposed. The only change, apart from 
tightening up the wording in places, is that the D-semantic 
conditions now only require that literal values of literals in the 
actual vocabulary are in LV.  This brings the D-semantic conditions 
in line with the other conditions in a way that Herman requested, but 
makes no difference to any any entailments.  The class extension of a 
datatype name is the value space of the datatype.

Pat


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC	(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501			(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2004 13:52:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 18 February 2014 13:20:08 UTC